In the matter of QQ [2010] JRC 217E (03 December 2010)

In the matter of QQ [2010] JRC 217E (03 December 2010)

The threshold criteria for intervention are satisfied for all three children based on prior findings of significant risk of harm. For D and E, the evidence from experts and the lack of parental insight or change means their welfare requires permanent placement with G under a final care order, as delay or further uncertainty would be detrimental. For H, while the threshold is met, the balance of risks at this interim stage favors H remaining with A and C under an interim care order with intensive monitoring, pending a review after three months of therapy, as immediate removal would likely cause greater emotional harm than the risk of physical harm given current safeguards.

Citation
[2010] JRC 217E
Parties
Mother of D, E, and H: A; Father of D and E: B; Father of H, Partner of a: C; Paternal Aunt of D and E, Proposed Carer: G; Applicant/child Protection Authority: Minister for Health and Social Services; Children's Guardian: Miss Green
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
03 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Care Proceedings / Welfare/final Determination After Fact Finding
Outcome
Final care orders made for D and E with placement to G; interim care order for H to remain with A and C with monitoring and review after three months of therapy.
Legal Topics
Care Orders, Threshold Criteria, Welfare Principle, Removal of Children, Kinship Care, Therapeutic Intervention, Proportionality, Human Rights
Family Law Child Protection Care Orders Threshold Criteria Welfare Principle Removal of Children Kinship Care Therapeutic Intervention +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Mother of D, E, and H

B

Father of D and E

C

Father of H, Partner of a

G

Paternal Aunt of D and E, Proposed Carer

Minister for Health and Social Services

Applicant/child Protection Authority

Miss Green

Children's Guardian

Procedural Posture

Care Proceedings / Welfare/final Determination After Fact Finding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether final care orders should be made for D and E and their placement with G
  2. 2 Whether H should remain with A and C or be removed to foster care under an interim care order
  3. 3 Whether threshold criteria under Children (Jersey) Law 2002 Article 24(2)(b)(i) are satisfied for H

Ratio Decidendi

The threshold criteria for intervention are satisfied for all three children based on prior findings of significant risk of harm. For D and E, the evidence from experts and the lack of parental insight or change means their welfare requires permanent placement with G under a final care order, as delay or further uncertainty would be detrimental. For H, while the threshold is met, the balance of risks at this interim stage favors H remaining with A and C under an interim care order with intensive monitoring, pending a review after three months of therapy, as immediate removal would likely cause greater emotional harm than the risk of physical harm given current safeguards.

Court Disposition

Final care orders made for D and E with placement to G; interim care order for H to remain with A and C with monitoring and review after three months of therapy.

Orders

  • Final care order for D and E placing them with G
  • Supervised contact for D and E with A, C, B, and paternal grandparents as approved by Children's Service and Court